# Dupont

> District Court, E.D. Louisiana · December 5, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11215186

## Case

- **Full name:** Wendy Williams Dupont v. Mayor Tyrin Z. Truong
- **Court:** District Court, E.D. Louisiana
- **Decided:** December 5, 2025
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11215186

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
WENDY WILLIAMS DUPONT * CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS * NO. 24-2775

MAYOR TYRIN Z. TRUONG * SECTION “A” (2)

ORDER AND REASONS

Pending before me is Plaintiff Wendy Williams Dupont’s Motion for Leave to File
Amended Complaint to Add Co-Plaintiff Bogalusa Rebirth. ECF No. 28. As of this date, no party
has filed an Opposition Memorandum, and the deadline for filing same expired on Tuesday,
November 25, 2025. See E.D. La. L.R. 7.5. No party requested oral argument in accordance with
Local Rule 78.1, and the court agrees that oral argument is unnecessary.
Having considered the record, the argument of counsel, and the applicable law, the Motion
is DENIED for the reasons that follow.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed suit alleging that she is an employee of Bogalusa Rebirth and that Defendant
violated her First Amendment rights by improperly blocking or restricting her access to his social
media accounts. ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 1, 4. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant retaliated against her
employer. Id. ¶ 6. Plaintiff filed this proceeding pro se. Id. at 3. She now seeks to amend her
complaint to add her employer Bogalusa Rebirth as a co-Plaintiff. ECF No. 28.
II. ANALYSIS
Initially, although the Court generally has the authority to grant a motion as unopposed, it
is not required to do so.1 The court may properly consider the merits of even an unopposed

1 Edward H. Bohlin Co., Inc. v. Banning Co., Inc., 6 F.3d 350, 356 (5th Cir. 1993).
motion.2
“[A] corporation may appear in the federal courts only through licensed counsel.”3 Courts
reason that the right to conduct business in an entity form carries with it an obligation to hire a
lawyer when the entity is sued.4 Thus, a corporation cannot litigate pro se; it may only do so
through an attorney.5 Plaintiff Dupont is not a licensed attorney. Therefore, she cannot file a

complaint on behalf of Bogalusa Rebirth.
When confronted with an unrepresented corporation that seeks to proceed pro se in federal
court, a district court may take a number of appropriate measures, including admonishing the
corporation that it may not proceed without counsel, ordering that the corporation retain counsel
within a certain period of time, striking any improper filings, or dismissing the case.6 Indeed, the
Fifth Circuit has “previously affirmed dismissals of claims or striking of pleadings of
unrepresented corporations.”7
Because Plaintiff may not represent Bogalusa Rebirth, she cannot join it as a party;
Bogalusa Rebirth must have counsel appear on its behalf. For that reason, Plaintiff’s request for

leave to amend the complaint is improper and lacks merit. Should Bogalusa Rebirth desire to join

2 See Webb v. Morella, 457 F. App'x 448, 452 n.4 (5th Cir. 2012) (citation omitted) (vacating dismissal with prejudice
for failure to file opposition in accordance with Local Rules in the absence of a clear record of contumacious conduct
or extreme delay and where the court failed to consider less severe sanctions).
3 Rowland v. Cal. Men's Colony, Unit II Men's Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 194, 201–02 (1993).
4 Alt. Materials, LLC v. TCH Constr. Grp., Inc., 339 F.R.D. 322, 324 (N.D. Fla. 2021) (citing United States v.
Hagerman, 549 F.3d 536, 537 (7th Cir. 2008)).
5 Donovan v. Road Rangers Country Junction, Inc., 736 F.2d 1004, 1005 (5th Cir. 1984) (per curiam); Sw. Exp. Co.
v. I.C.C., 670 F.2d 53, 55 (5th Cir. 1982) (per curiam) (“The rule is well established that a corporation can appear in
a court of record only by an attorney at law.” (citations and quotation marks omitted)); see also Am. Safety LLC v.
Alger, No. 20-3451, 2021 WL 1753808, at *2 (E.D. La. May 4, 2021) (Brown, C.J.) (holding that LLC cannot
appear through non-attorney president and member); Galan v. Wolf, No. 90-855, 1990 WL 109374, at *2 n.1 (E.D.
La. July 17, 1990), aff'd, 925 F.2d 1459 (5th Cir. 1991).
6 Murillo v. Coryell Cnty. Tradesmen, LLC, No. 15-3641, 2016 WL 7441146, at *2 (E.D. La. Dec. 27, 2016)
(Brown, J.) (citing Memon v. Allied Domecq QSR, 385 F.3d 871, 873 n.5 (5th Cir. 2004); Argonaut Midwest Ins. Co.
v. XP Servs. Inc., No. 12-2304, 2013 WL 12140407, at *1 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 13, 2013))).
7 Torres v. Krueger, 596 F. App'x 319, 321 (5th Cir. 2015) (citing Donovan, 736 F.2d at 1005; K.M.A., Inc. v. Gen.
Motors Acceptance Corp., 652 F.2d 398, 399 (5th Cir. Unit B July 1981)).
Plaintiff's case, it must obtain counsel and may seek to intervene as a plaintiff under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 24 or file its own case with an indication that it relates to Plaintiffs suit as
required by Local Rule 3.1.
Il. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint to Add Co-
Plaintiff (ECF No. 28) is DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this Sth day of December, 2025.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11215186. Public record. Not legal advice.